Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1887-02-08

.|ANlANNNAAAEI4
psoosedlnss sefs had;
As the Court was shoot 10 appoiat =
OFyss aud BslIia for ths term. The Hon
W. Il. White. q. g. Attorney, inssrposed
his oblseaion thereto on behalf Of tbs
Unlled States. stating that the aoooouts
a~sinss the q. 5. for ssFvioss Of thess
ana other officers Of the Court passed
throaah his hands aud repaired bis ~
psosnI; and that, 10 - msah ~ be con
esdssed ne aes Of the Legislature Of
1886 9, b virtue Of whieh ths C0urs bad
is eonvantlou. inyalid, under The resent
aeoision Of The Supreme Court Of tbs
Territssy, and THAI. therefoFe. tbs C0aFt
had no pewar 70 sit 10 this slime, and al
rroaesdinzs had before Il would b IL
valia, be licensed q bic duty 10 sbieci
10 any expense being insured By ID.
Tue ledge then stated that be had
thoseht soma Of the question bat that,
"a view Of she magnitude Of the inter
ea.s Il stake, be goald ask 10 heaz ar
anmenas, pro and con, upsn the legal
qaessi0n presented BY the objeeti0n.
and fer that reason be gsaid ssk the
msmbors Of the Bar 70 meet and ap-
poina committees Ut three 10 argue each
aide Of ths question. For thaf puposs
she Court W0uid take . recess until 2
p. N.
arises from the following state Of facts;
Tbs titis II the ACT popularity known ~
thaWoman suafaae set reads aa follows:
san Aat 70 amend Section $3.50, Chap
Ger %, of the Gods Of Washtngton." The
Teosns desision Of the Sapreme CoaFt Of
Washington Territory. 10 Hanlon vs..
Territory, held that act Invalid because
she ebieos Of The same waa not expressed
ID ils title, as required b. the limita'
lisus upon legislative power laid down
10 The organic act Of the TeFFitefy.
Thegein the Court held that the nam-
beFa Of chapters and sections - cou-
tanned u WhaE u kn0Wn - the sCode
OF Ie8fn are no part Of the laws, bat
mereiy the clerical woFk Of Vie con-
piler, and therefsr the reference 10 9
certain section or ohaPteF, or both By
nambeF only, vas q references 10 rOthina
and nothing whatever was expressed
In tie title te said act. Toe Legislature
o. 1856, passed an Get changing the
time for holding the Saprems Court OF
the Territory from July % January Of
each year, and also changing the times
Of holding the various District Courts.
BY viftae Of che provisions OF that ACT,
tke Supreme Court Of tbs Territory held
iia recent session, aBa the District
Court has held the tsFee terms Of court
e ) satIie during the year 1856. TIE
title 10 that act reads as follows; "An
Aol 10 amend Chapter civ. OF the
Code Of Washington Territory, entiilsd
'Courts,'H aud the point taken By Mf.
Waits u that the title 10 tue two sets
Above given are practically The same aud
equally defective.
NETTING on THE nAR ASSOCIATION.
Immediaisly up0n The recess Of the
coaFt, the Bar Association was called 20
order In the chambers Of Judge Greene
By the Hen. Ebsn smith, President,
whe briefly stated the objects Of the
meeting aud asksd the pleasure Of the
Association.
q. II. Hanford. Esq, moved that q
committee Of three membars Of the Bar
Be appointed BY the Chair 10 argue abe
question presented. The motion, beina
seconded by Mr.. Carr, vas carried, and
she Chair asked brief expressions from
all the members present ~ TO their
views upon the question thst be might
Be guided thereby Ia making the Ap-
pointments. Ihegsupon lhe following
named members recorded themselves ~
viewing The act In question valid, VIE:
MeaaFa. sodeTberg, Ronald, Geo. III.
Preston, l.. q. Gilman. Harold Preston,
Wood, Carr, Bowman and McGraw.
while the following named gentlemen,
being also IN fAvos Of holding the pres
ent term OF court, gave reasons therefor
80 follows; Richard Osborn thought the
word "couFta" IN the title saved tue act
from The fate Of the act recently passed
upon by the Supreme CoaFt.
Mr.. Hartford tho1eht the recent Su-
preme Court az least q Dc farfo court,
and that therefore its decisions we're 81
binding force, but that The act in aues.
tioD can be distinguished from sha
woman suffrage act, - 10 their titles,
and that The. sapeeme Court would 60
bold. Thai be understood that Judges
Turner and LanRford, who we're lhe
judges heldina the act relating 10
women ~ electors invAltd had ex
pressed themselves ~ being contra
minded ae 10 the act IN question, and be
believed that these judges Sonld bold
the aca IN question valid. That Jadee
Lanaford IN bis decision had held thai
the book Of laws commonly known aa
the Code Of 1881 vas q nullity. and had
never been passed BY the Legislature;
that we have no such eodiied laws and
that therefore an ncl % amend abe Code
was an set ~ithoat . legal object. and
therefore void. Judee l.aneford had,
however, held she act invalid upon
every point made against il, hua Mr..
hAnfofd vas Of the oplnson teal IN THAI
part Of HE decision relating 10 the
Code the judge had labored under 4
misappFehension Ia regard 10 the facka,
and upon locking further into The re-
oosds Of the Legislature woald retrAct
thai part IT hts decision. Further, Mr..
hanferd favored action toward rene.
dial lesislation 6y Congress.
Mt. hAfnes thonaht thai the Supreme
Court By hosdtng les session ia Janaary
under The provisions q tue aca undef
consideration. and By rendering = iads.
nent feF eosts in the very ease cited.
VIA Hanlon ~. fexritofy, hAd pAassd
upen the aFst named aca fAvorahly 10
Ns validity, and from their 80 doing Be
vas satisfied ID would be % held. Alsa,
De knew from conveFSasfans wiah Judges
larnef and f.anetord. that they wers Of
the opinion 81 laaysrs THAI the set ~
iatina te Ossfts cas- Sufficiently entitled
AIR. Wiieoxea stated thai Ia 4 notion
for rsbeAFlng s1eaitEed hy eim % shr
sapFenae Coagi AZ ils recent . snlan in
anothsF oase. be hs3 arEed eeeetaliy the
point that The couFt had 30 iartsdission
- enteFtain the efsgsaal rnoison Of rs
oppensnt. bal the CsaEt had desisd bic
molten.
Mt. Halter thcaehi Il hest b precaps
~ the only fVs1its 81 decisian holdinc
The ees invalid weaid ~ Fslfisis % oss
tain eases. while u uas very aaabsfal II
such decision woaid ever e rendered
Mr.. Halter favored setten sendina b.
validating le1islatioc ey Gocrrsss.
Mr.. Petersen theaEkl tke tstle q The
act sufficient Ia itseif,
JHage Iayon tAoaEht the acts OF the
Supreme Court. referred 30 by Mr..
naines. Ia themselves 10 Sdaca as1esissrn
Rrhoidirg the act
Jaaee Rarke eoald rst IS TITS time
expgeaa q tsaal eplnioa npan the enaa-
ison, e be had nos ru4d The decision az
Tie SapEense OoaFt, and csaid not knau
10 uhai lsngth thai deciaioa bad eeaa.
o